User talk:Scray/Archive 1

Saying hello
Hi Scray, we seem to share an interest in hepatitis/hepatitis viruses so I thought it might be a good idea say hello. I'm constantly planning to do more work on Hepatitis B virus but finding the time is a problem. I would be interested in your opinions of the serological responses graphs that I produced, (and any other ideas). Do you think they are intelligible to a lay reader? Best wishes, Graham. --Graham Colm Talk 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi GrahamColm, and thanks for dropping by to say hello. I have found your contributions extremely helpful, in content and in tone, as I learn to edit WP.  Congrats on your recent inclusion on the FA team - a well-earned distinction (and those always come with plenty of work, don't they?).
 * Regarding Hepatitis B virus serologies, and in particular the images on your user page, I left a couple of specific comments on Image talk:Chronic HBV v2.png. In general I like HBV serological curves because they are familiar, I like graphs, and I am very visual, but I found them daunting when I was in school and in teaching about this I have found that HBV newbies can digest tables of "+" and "-" more easily.  The transitions between well-defined states are missing from such tables, but those are generally brief and hard to interpret anyway, except in retrospect.  It now occurs to me that we could also use a flowchart, which would convey the same information but could also help people understand that people can move back-and-forth between states, particular when immuno-active.
 * Please feel free to help me with WP etiquette, as I'm not sure whether I should be responding here or on your talk page.Scray (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Scray, it's completely up to you where you respond. I like to keep conversations together so here is good for me. You right about the (+) and (-), they do not convey the sense of progression that I wanted to capture. Perhaps they would be better for this article? The flow chart is a very good idea indeed. I'm not sure what you mean about back and forth between states, I never seen this, but one has to be very careful around here about neutrality ;-). Any help with these figures and any of the other articles would be much appreciated as is your constant help with fending off the vandals. Lastly please call me Graham as do the others, it's nice because it's my real name. Thanks for responding. I'm glad we've met. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

?
I was wondering about this edit. I did not have a conflict of interest, as there was no edit war and I was merely undoing what I'm pretty sure was an IP user's removal of sourced content. I'll check if it's a legit source, but that IP user's sudden deletion of that passage was based on faulty reasoning. If it turns out that the source is a dud, then I'll let the article stay as it is. Cheers, Fusion  Mix  13:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - in re-reading my edit summary I can see why you are confused - I worded it poorly. What I meant to say was that I agreed with the IP user's deletion, because that paragraph is unsourced, appeared to be a personal account thus violating COI policy, and in any case represented an anecdote of no general interest.  So, my edit summary was meant to be a comment on the passage that had been deleted, not your restoration of it.  Should I do something to clarify?  I would not agree with restoring that deletion without some justification. --Scray (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also see the relevant Talk page, where I explained my rationale at the time. --Scray (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Caltech
Thanks for your note! Caltech has been one of the most important universities with the least impressive Wikipedia article. So, I'm doing what I can to gradually change that. Amerique dialectics 22:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi Scray - I've fulfilled your request. Please see WP:RBK or ask me if you need any help with the tool. Happy editing! Pedro : Chat  14:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI
I've made this edit :) -hydnjo talk 01:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I did not know about that page. Very kind of you to think of me. --Scray (talk) 02:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You should have been added sooner - sorry about that and you're welcome! -hydnjo talk 04:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Exhaled Breath Temperature
Hello Scray,

I've posted a rough draft on Exhaled Breath temperature on my talk page. I'd like to get other people who are interested in this area to have a look at it and comment. I read the stuff about Afc but that seems to be for people who are not registered.

I suppose I could just go ahead and start the topic and make sure I have a decent discussion page ready and the appropriate people will just find it right?

Any chance you could take a quick look at my effort? Did I miss something in the links you gave me about how to publicise a topic to a likely bunch of Wikipedians who will be interested in this topic?

Sorry if I'm being thick I'll be fine once I get used to the edit tools.

Thanks

Jonathan (Singapore) --Jgeach (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jonathan, I've responded on your talk page. --Scray (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Calc-sinter
I've asked about it on a couple of mineral or geological forums, will let you know what comes up. DuncanHill (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Stress and stroke
You recently posted on the reference desk about the links between chronic stress and stroke. This new study says it may be mostly because of behavioral factors. Thought you'd be interested. Cheers - Draeco (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Correlation does not prove causation. There are other studies that strongly indicate physiological impacts of stress that could trigger blood clots and other phenomena.  It's not likely to be a single factor, anyway.  --Scray (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

2suit split request
Yo, and Happy New Year. I'm about to split 2suit from Sex in space back to a separate article. I left an over-elaborate justification on the latter's talk page, but the gist of it is that the situation was drastically changed after the merge decision when the suit featured in a History Channel documentary. Not peripherally - the bloody things were demonstrated in zero gravity.

The editor who AfD'd and merged the 2suit article has no objections to a split. Since you did object, but gave no sign of addressing this change in the situation, I'm writing this notification to make sure you have a chance to do so.

Here's something I'm experimenting with: If you lack the time or energy for a full-length reply, feel free to reply with the word "jackhammer" if you don't object so that I can get things dover with and you won't waste time. --Kiz o r  18:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I disagree with the split and explained why here. --Scray (talk) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

new WP:RDREG userbox
The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all RefDesk regulars. Since you are an RD regular, you are receiving this notice to remind you to put this box on your userpage! (but when you do, don't include the |no. Just say   ) This adds you to Category:RD regulars, which is a must. So please, add it. Don't worry, no more spam after this - just check WP:RDREG for updates, news, etc. flaminglawyerc 23:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I can see that I am in good company.  Thank you.  --Scray (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

 * Woo hoo! I'm one year old!  --Scray (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Firstly, thanks for your answer on the help desk. I've posted a reply there to clarify a bit. Secondly, I'm judging by your response that you're somewhat involved in the medical profession, but I've never seen you around at WikiProject Medicine. Have you thought about helping out? We could use the help :) Cheers! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cyclonenim, I hope it's okay to reply here. I have particularly enjoyed your contributions on the RD.  I am still finding my way around WP, and appreciate the suggestion.  I'll have a look at the project.  I have to be careful about saying "yes" to things...  --Scray (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fine to reply here. Most people tend to reply on their own talk page, I'm an exception who likes to post around more :) Don't worry about WP:MED, it's not really a formal commitment, signing up only tells people that you're interested in the subject and edit articles related to it; however, keeping track of the talk page their can help you keep up to date on medical issues here. If you choose to sign up, place your name here and then from the main page you can find your way everywhere :) Cheers, let me know how it goes! —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you would be most welcome, Scray. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So nice to feel the warm welcome - I'm in. Thank you.  --Scray (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!
Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:
 * Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources
 * Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is )
 * Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
 * Have a look at some related WikiProjects
 * Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on.

Again, welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Childhood obesity
Thanks you for the support. This editor has added these pictures 3 or 4 time and has never come to the table to discuss things. One I think is of himself.

Cheers -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This removal
I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the above question completely as a request for medical advice. Please see my full reasoning here. I just wanted to let you know as one of the responders to the question. Thanks. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a problem - and I appreciate the thoughtful notice. I replied there. --Scray (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hepatitis image update
Have simplified the antigens section.Antigens are mentioned irrespective of whether they are detected in routine laboratory tests or not.HBcAg is not seen in blood.But it has been mentioned because it is the core antigen.Please go ahead with the delete if the file is still not upto the calling.I can add a table for the same after i learn to do it.

-thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishanthb (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is inconsistent because every hepatitis virus protein is an antigen, yet you only list some of them. If you mean structural protein, the list is still not consistent (e.g. HBeAg is not a structural antigen).  Do you mean antigen that is present in blood?  If so then for HCV "many others" does not apply, and the list for HAV is incomplete.  A table that all of us can edit is the right way to go.  Help:Table may be useful if you haven't seen it yet.  --Scray (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Scray, Thanks for your encouragement on the HIV talk page. It always brightens my day to read your own cogent writing on HIV, Hep and other medical topics. Keep up the great work! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
Apologies for reverting you last night. I was completely unaware of the rules in Categorization of people with regards to categorising Scots. No need to be as humble as you were; I also missed the opportunity to leave a useful edit summary. Cheers. JFW | T@lk  09:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi, there.

Of course you are correct about "minor" edits. Since I do so many Punctuation, Capitalization, Linking, and Markup edits, which are minor, I recently made "minor" my default. Problem is, when I added the section, I forgot to take the check mark off. I realized it myself, but there doesn't appear to be any way to go back and correct something like that.

So, yes you're right, and I must be more careful. B00P (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(Just unchcked the box for this one.)

Procedure related articles
With the recent tension over the Mohs surgery article, I have started a discussion regarding guidelines pertaining to articles about medical procedures. If available, given your editing history, perhaps you would consider participating in the discussion? kilbad (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology
Do you have an interest in dermatology? kilbad (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not more than other medical specialties. --Scray (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, np. Thank you for your response. kilbad (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Science RD
In order: arimareiji (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) My apologies.
 * 2) Good call.
 * 3) Thank you.


 * Stepping back from it all, I think the episode was healthy for the RD community. No really harsh words were exchanged, and the dust settled quickly.  Your answers on RD/S have been excellent - it's good to have you there.  Cheers,  --Scray (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you... I've added it to my watchlist, so you may be seeing me more in the future (be afraid...) ;-) arimareiji (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the admonition re: homework, I'll try to be more mindful. arimareiji (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet again, you earn Comment of the Day with "On the flip side, recent experience suggests height increases within 1-2 generations of shift to higher-calorie diet, and I don't think that's because increases in calorie intake kill the short people." Thank you for the laughs; it's good to work with people of good humor. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, I agree about anthropomorphizing - I was contradicting the notion that cancer cells are "particularly adept", not affirming it. And wrt the sniper analogy, I definitely wasn't trying to anthro chemo drugs - rather, the person designing them. arimareiji (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I made my second edit (noting the OP's language) because I realized that my comment might come off as an indictment of what you had said, when that was not the intention - following your comment seemed like the appropriate place to place mine in the flow of the discussion. Sorry if the tone came off wrong - no disagreement intended.  --Scray (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this vandalism??
Please look at his third attempt to edit this article basal cell cancer in the last few weeks: --Northerncedar (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (cur) (prev) 22:40, 25 February 2009 Nickcoop (Talk | contribs) (23,265 bytes) (I have moved the Mohs advertisment to the Mohs section.) (undo)


 * This is not the best way to involve editors in a discussion about an article. It would have been more appropriate to open a discussion at the Talk:Basal cell carcinoma page.  I have done so, but please don't take this as an endorsement of canvassing.  --Scray (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- MifterBot I (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 21:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC) T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the invitation, but my plate is overflowing and Cardiology is not my focus. Cheers!  --Scray (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New questions
I have posted some new questions regarding medical procedures and, if avaliable, wanted to know if you would leave some comments there? kilbad (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for correcting my mistake. Best wishes. Axl ¤  [Talk]  15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Axl, Thank you! This is really quite meaningful coming from someone for whom I have so much respect.  --Scray (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Full blood count
We use this term in the UK; you call it "complete blood count". ;-) Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, my! Now you know which side of the pond I'm on.  :-0   No doubt your first clue, hm?
 * In that response I did link to the WP page, which is named using the proper (U.S.) term. ;-P
 * Axl, it's always good to hear from you. --Scray (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyperthermia therapy

 * This page needs citations from reliable medical sources, — and you are invited to help do that. ;-)

Seriously, I was just about to post this to WT:MED to see whether anyone wanted to help turn it into a good WP:DYK candidate. We've got five days (minus about an hour or two, as of this writing), if we want to do that. I think it's a good topic to do well because there's some overlap between outright quackery and good science in the topic.

Do you have an interest in helping out? 'hyperthermia cancer treatment' produces some 2000 reviews to sort through at PubMed, and there are 800 potential sources at Google books, so there's no shortage of sources to review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Irritation
Well, I'm certainly very sorry to have irritated you; it was certainly not what I intended and had I thought it would irritate you I would have remained silent. I do think that we're here to provide information to people who need it, and my edit was intended only to do so. - Nunh-huh 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help and can I have a little more, please?
Thank you, Scray, for turning up just when some bot accused me of possible vandalism....me, a known malware and troll hunter where I come from. I had a lot of trouble getting the page with that edit to go through; it timed out on me several times. The bot now says 150,000 bytes in it, which seems more than a little excessive for the 8 or so lines I actually wrote. The bot's log seems to show I re-sent the entire earlier text of the entire page, which of course does not show up if I look at the earlier version. Do the bots normally make this kind of mistake? In case this was a hidden post caused by the trouble in posting, I am NOT reverting to my version, but rewriting it. Thanks again for hitting me with all those Welcome templates; a few I've not come across yet. KoolerStill (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the bot was triggered when this edit pretty much blanked the whole Science RefDesk page. On further digging it looks like you replaced the page with a single section on dimmers - not sure how that happened but it certainly doesn't look like vandalism.  I also see that you had trouble with duplicated posting here.  Overall, sounds like you are having browser trouble, and you might want to limit editing until that's resolved.
 * Regarding "all those Welcome templates", that was just one template. Sorry if it seemed excessive, but the links looked useful.  I sincerely hope that your editing goes well and you enjoy Wikipedia.  --Scray (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, problem solved then. Both incidents would have been caused by postdata being re-sent, the first time losing the copy of the page and sending only my addition to it. I write in an external editor anyway, so next time I'll just kill the page and start on a new copy of it. I hope in months to come blanking a whole page won't be held against me.KoolerStill (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Reference desk

 * Thank you! --Scray (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Medical questions on the refdesk
Hello Kainaw, TenOfAllTrades and Scray,

Please take a look at this thread, along with my response on SteveBaker's talk page, and my response and Tango's answer on Tango's talk page. I'm asking the three of you directly instead of raising the issue directly on the refdesk's talk page, because I feel the discussions there on such matters lately have been rather predictable and unproductive. Your opinions would be greatly valued. If two of the three of you feel that the OP is asking for medical advice, I'll remove it myself, with a note on the refdesk talk page. Please reply on my talk page. Thanks, --NorwegianBluetalk 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was naïve of me not to move this to the talk page in the first place, the meta-discussion started building up on the refdesk itself. I've moved the meta-discussion now. Your opinion will be greatly appreciated on the refdesk talk page, instead of on mine as I initially suggested. Thanks. --NorwegianBluetalk 20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Put back of post
I just didn't know I was doing something wrong. I just thought I need help seeking a source, and I didn't know it was common sense. I just don't want people to keep warring, I just want OP to be a quick one.--69.226.39.79 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No one is at war on the ref desk. I restored that post because the WP:Talk guidelines say that we should not delete content from Talk pages except under special conditions (that did not apply in this case).  You might want to read that guideline if you haven't already.  Cheers!  --Scray (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do Wiki admins have to notify to users local school/authority for trolling and vandals. Because sometimes users don't know when they troll, and they don't know they are doing something wrong. Do what degrees of defiances do admins have to notify users local schools/authority?--69.226.39.79 (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know as I am not an admin. This sounds like a question you could ask on the Help desk.  --Scray (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at the potential mergers!
It is much appreciated. I usually place such talks in the med talk page as I am unsure if people look at the merger tabs specifically with a medical background as I felt the quicker they are merged or left as they are, the better! Kind regards!Calaka (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're excellent suggestions you made - my pleasure to help. I agree that the Talk page of an obscure article is not likely to be seen frequently, so if you start the discussion there (as I did) then add a pointer to that discussion on the wiki project medicine page, that'll give people a place to discuss that remains attached to the proper pages.  --Scray (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thanks again. :) Calaka (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Viral culture
I noticed your dismay at Shell viral culture assay being redlinked. Viral culture would be a good place to write about that; it's a pathetic microstub at the moment. I'm not familiar with the area, but could give a stab at producing a stub. Fences &amp;  Windows  02:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Am a bit swamped at the moment, but when I get a chance to focus on that article I'll try to contribute meaningfully to it.  --Scray (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirected Shell vial to Viral culture. --Scray (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

About FibroTest article
Hi,

I would like to thank you for your work on FibroTest article. I agree with all modifications you (and others) made on the article, but one.

You did add the FT formula you found from the patent in the article, but :


 * this is an issue for the owner of the patent (public APHP)


 * most importantly, usage of the formula is dangerous without its securities. This may lead to majors problems with up to 5% of users, with both false positives and false negatives. Diagnosis tests are not a matter of "just a formula".


 * the commercial strategy of the company licensed by Assistance Publique des Hopitaux de Paris (like any other) is the only one to build robust tests, validated with its initial population (HCV patients for FibroTest), but also for other populations that deserves a better diagnosis (HCV with all genotypes, HBV, HIV co-infected, NAFLD, Alcohol, children, 65+, all ethnies, etc.).


 * there has been this kind of discussion in the litterature. An example with this letter in Clin Chem 2005 "Fibrosis biomarkers are not only a formula" : http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/eletters/51/10/1867

What I suggest is to keep the link to the US Patent website, explain the idea of the formula (a regression including all parameters) for the educational material (as suggested in your comment), but not show the formula itself.

I'm willing to talk about it if you want - I did not make these changes to the article myself before talking of it with you.

Thanx for your time and implication on Wikipedia.

Biopredictive (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful and civil note. I added the formula because it illustrates the concept of the test better and in a more concrete way than a text description would, and helps the curious see the relative weights that each part receives.  I found it very interesting when I found it.  I don't think the safety concerns are substantial, and they certainly do not outweigh the information value.  Regarding the other concerns from the company's point of view regarding their patent, it's clear that no one should use this formula commercially - and I did specifically make it clear that it's the subject of a patent.  The mandate here is to inform, as illustrated by the mantra, "Wikipedia is not censored".  If you read the text behind that link, I think you'll see what I mean.  I did not provide the formula saying that it should be used, and agree with retaining the text that describes the services, precautions, and safety measures that come with the official report.  Above all, the formula is the subject of the article, and I feel it's relevant.  I am going to copy this reply to the Talk:FibroTest page, so that others have a chance to weigh in.  --Scray (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given Biopredictive notice that their username falls outside policy. I also believe that they are getting close to needing to be banned from that page and any relating to hepatology due to their COI. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

hi
thx for the note. I find that often people are confused about wikipedia and the worlds level of interest in their favourite link.... certainly no one I think got rich advertising on wikipedia. You dont need admin powers for step one. Remove the spam and note something like "remove ad". If they are reverted then engage the person with persuasion. If the account is spam only then I can block/delete it, but this is not step one. hope that helps. Tell me how it goes 07:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) ok? Victuallers (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I took your lack of signature as a hint that you were ending the conversation. I found your note to be responsive, and did revert the most egregious cases (a tedious process, to be sure).  I'll check but I've noticed no further problems.  Perhaps the editor in question got the message.  -- Scray (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
Thank you for contributing to our articles. If you are interested in making more contributions on cell biology and biochemistry topics, you might want to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject (signup here). You will be most welcome. - Tim Vickers (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the humor!
I appreciate your humor on the reference desk.

^_^ Happy editing  Letter  7   it's the best letter :)  13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Scray, FYI: I've lost my calmness temporarily and started a discussion about this editor. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting input for proposed community sanction of User:Neuromancer
You commented at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a thread which has now led to proposals that the user in question be topic banned or site banned, or that review of the issue be put aside while Neuromancer seeks a mentor. Your further input to that discussion would be welcome. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

about a response of yours

 * Very kind of you, and much appreciated! -- Scray (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Primary source
Hi, thanks for your interest in the ciprofloxacin article. :) You recently deleted a source saying it was a primary source, but it is classed a review, see above title of paper here, I can add in the British National Formulary which has a UK equivalent (Committee on the Safety of Medicines) of a black box warning for doctors about NSAID interaction increasing seizure risk. It is a significant drug interaction. What are your thoughts?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit (I hope that you don't mind, happy to discuss if you do mind) and added in product information leaflet hosted on FDA website and British National Formulary as additional references. The interaction is not specific to ciprofloxacin but is a quinolone drug class effect. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I apologize if I mischaracterized that reference; the BNF guidance is only accessible within the UK, so I'll just have to take your word on that. I'd be surprised by such a strong recommendation, given the extremely low frequency of seizure related to ciprofloxacin, and my inability to find human data supporting that recommendation.  Do you know of a stronger source than that "review", which was published in 1994 and written by a pharma employee from a competing company?  That paper is not accessible because it's in an archive only accessible from certain UK institutions, but some sources comment that the epileptogenic potential is based on animal studies.  Additionally, I'll comment that Journal of Antimicrobial Therapy is not exactly a first-tier journal.  I really don't feel strongly about this, but such strong language regarding two commonly-used classes should be extremely well-sourced.  -- Scray (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (after seeing your ec post) I am okay with the revert, but I looked at the FDA language and this is all it says: "Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (but not acetyl salicylic acid) in combination of very high doses of quinolones have been shown to provoke convulsions in pre-clinical studies." Is there anything more convincing than that?  If not, I think we should soften the article's language a lot to reflect that this is only seen as a risk with "very high doses" and is only supported by "pre-clinical studies" - the FDA guidance does not state that concomitant therapy is contra-indicated, and does not classify this serious.  Note that ciprofloxacin has been in use for 22 years - it's amazing that if this is important, it has so little support.  -- Scray (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what the British National Formulary 57th edition, page 323 says: The CSM has warned that quinolones may induce convulsions; taking NSAIDs at the same time may also induce them.
 * Here is referencing to FDA changing safety labeling to a different quinolone (norfloxacin) [but they are referring to the drug class] warn of increased risk of seizures with NSAIDs. Yes seizures from quinolones are uncommon as are tendon damage but because one is potentially life threatening and the other one potentially permanently disabling regulatory bodies recommend avoidance of NSAIDs with quinolones due to CNS toxicity and seizure risk and corticosteroids and quinolones (due to increased risk of tendon toxicity).
 * Seizures occur in humans from quinolones as well and is listed as an adverse effect in package insert. I believe that it comes from post-marketing survielance eg FDA and CSM/MHRA reports as well as individual reports in clinical trials and literature.
 * I didn't write the quinolone articles and the sourcing needs improving in other areas of the article which I have been gradually improving over the past few months and I am making good headway. They were in bad shape a six months or so ago due to a newcomer not being aware of wiki policies on citing sources and on encyclopedic tone etc. I shall look for a more recent ref to replace the 1994 reference. Give me half an hour or so and I shall find better sources. I do believe that I am correct that they are contraindicated but if I am wrong then I shall edit the article accordingly.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I do think it's important to find a more reliable source, or just remove the 1994 reference in favor of the guidance. None of what we've found from FDA or BNF support use of the word "contra-indicated", so I think that should that be removed regardless (to avoid synthesis)?  Also, this statement: "This potentially serious interaction is the result of increased antagonism of GABA neurotransmission" seems controversial, and adds little - perhaps that should just be removed.  I must say that your evidence-based approach is warmly welcomed by me - this is a satisfying interaction!  Cheers, -- Scray (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I've resumed this discussion at Talk:Ciprofloxacin since that's the topic, and others should have a chance to weigh in. I do appreciate your consideration in notifying me of your revert. -- Scray (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] I found a more recent review which is independent from the drug companies and is comprehensive. I have rewritten the section according to the references. So the 1994 potential rival drug company review is now deleted. There are other risk factors as you probably know for quinolone induced seizures, such as advanced age, renal impairment, other drugs which lower the seizure threshold but this is more relevant for adverse effects section. I found a ref which discussed different views in package inserts presumably due to different regulatory bodies in different countries giving different guidance. Many contraindications are relative and are not absolute and should be broken per clinical judgement in serious medical situations. I agree that the FDA and CSM guidance in BNF from what I have read do not contraindicate quinolones but they do warn about risks of combining them with quinolones. Seizures are not common but there are other CNS effects which can occur more commonly with NSAIDs and quinolones, seizures is just the most severe and thankfully one of the less common CNS adverse effects.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I shall continue the conversation there. Thanks for your replies. No need to reply to the above unless you want to.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is ciprofloxacin article on your watch list still Scray? I have replied there. Also just crossing out an error in my first post to you here as explained on ciprofloxacin talk. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - busy day today, but I'm just catching up with my watchlist now and will reply there. Thanks!  -- Scray (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted your deletion and changes from AIDS
1. there was no reference provided for TB being easily treated in HIV patients - it is in fact difficult to treat TB in HIV as both ATT and ART cocktails are very hard on the liver and in many (most?)cases cannot be tolerated simultaneously. 2. to say that TB is preventable with drug therapy is a very strong statement that has no support in the literature. "sometimes preventable is the most that should be said, given the number of patients that cannot be treated adequately. 3. The WHO information on TB and HIV and the % of AIDS deaths that are related to TB is a must. This co-infection is one of the world's biggest killers at the moment. 4. To remove the phase 2 trial as not satisfying WP:MEDRS is not realistic, since there are so few if any of the other citations that are phase 2 or greater in any of the sections in the AIDS entry.  The work is clearly marked research and should remain on the page. 5. The uniqueness and importance factors come to play when you are talking about TB/HIV since there are so few therapies currently available for treatment of advanced stages of this co-infection.  Please reconsider your deletion - you may edit if you wish, but don't delete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitesimus (talk • contribs) 00:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Infinitesimus. I'll respond briefly here, though I think Talk:AIDS would be a better place to conduct any more discussion.
 * Fair enough. I'll leave that, because "easily" is a pretty subjective term.  I think HIV-treaters are pretty familiar with the drug interactions, particularly choices among the rifamycins and avoidance of NNRTIs, but those complexities could be seen as making treatment of TB+HIV not easy.  On the "easy" side is the reality that TB is curable in that setting with well-defined regimens, and the point of that paragraph (as I see it, again somewhat subjective) is to contrast with some other opportunistic infections that are quite difficult to treat, with ill-defined treatment courses.  I'll also offer that it's wise to provide a reference to a reliable source when changing an article - it's much harder to revert a well-sourced, balanced statement.
 * Treatment of latent TB infection, and prophylactic therapy in exposed persons, are well-established.
 * A well-sourced and balanced statement to this effect could be integrated into the article.
 * Primary reports of phase II studies are rarely notable, most come to nothing. We have guidance on this topic, and such references also need to adhere to WP:weight and WP:NPOV.  You've got a few editors suggesting that you re-examine your edits - perhaps you should heed that advice.
 * There are many therapies available for people with HIV and TB. There need to be more options for TB, but it's not appropriate to aggressively promote an early-stage therapy.
 * I'm happy to work with you to improve wikipedia, but I'll continue to delete (with appropriate edit summaries) content that does not belong in WP.
 * NOTE: if you want to continue this discussion of the AIDS article, let's do that on Talk:AIDS. Please do not continue this on my Talk page - Talk:AIDS is on my watchlist.  -- Scray (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.physorg.com/news179433709.html - Gene Hijacked By HIV Ancestor Suggests New Way to Block Viral Reproduction
Hello Scray,

I appreciate your hard work in maintaining wikipedia pages. I have added information about the new discovered gene sequence in HIV virus, as it seems to have direct link to vaccine development. Your comment was, that there is no link to vaccine development. In the original article there is fragment: “While the past 30 years of intense work on HIV have brought enormous advances in treatment, innovative research such as this will continue to push the field toward better medicines and effective vaccines.”

This was my original insert in the HIV structure section

On 2009-12-06 the study was published which found animal genes inside of modern human HIV. By finding known sequence of genes in HIV it might be much easier to block it, because there is quite a sequence that does not mutate. The sequence that was discovered helps HIV to replicate in the human cells. Reference: "Gene Hijacked By HIV Ancestor Suggests New Way to Block Viral Reproduction" http://www.physorg.com/news179433709.html

Do you believe I should look for more information on this topic?

Thanks Wojcz (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting finding, but I don't see any direct link to vaccines. The phrase you quote is "boilerplate", present in various forms in innumerable papers on HIV.  It's possible that this sequence will be immunogenic in a manner that helps control or prevent HIV infection, but the paper did not directly address that question.  I just don't think this report belongs on the HIV vaccine page.  Perhaps on the HIV page, but even there this may not be sufficiently WP:Notable.  -- Scray (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 Arbitration Committee Elections
We need to contact you privately to discuss a potential issue with your vote in the 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, however you do not have email enabled in your preferences. Could you please get in touch, either by email to, or find me on IRC (I'm in #mediawiki most of the time). Many thanks.

For the election officials,

Happy ‑ melon 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits
Please refrain from removing my criticisms in the future. Your charachterisation of my views are no more valid or legitimate than the next persons. I have the right to voice my critisism in whatever style I choose. I will take you to arbitration if you ever remove my comments again.Nunamiut (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are referring to this edit in which I removed your entry on Talk:Federal Reserve System that did satisfy guidelines established by WP:Talk and violated WP:NOTFORUM. That Talk page is for discussing improvement of article content, not criticism of the Federal Reserve system. If you feel that my removal was inappropriate, then it's your right to complain, but I disagree with you and would do it again for the reasons I gave in the edit summary.   -- Scray (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My issue was rather specific, it was an issue with a specified section: the criticism section, and a specified portion of that section: all the claims that were not sourced or documented in any way shape or form. I also gave an example: that several of the lines were formulated in the fashion "some people say", which nowadays is not even accepted in mainstream journalism. I believe Fox News is are the only ones left with the chutzpah to still dare using it, since they (like the article in question) no longer care about being taken seriously, only about propagating a selected (in this case conservative) version of world events. That is not how any matter is studied or presented neither in history nor in serious journalism. But relax, I give up. What's the use. Let Wikipedia become a dishonest conservative think tank for all I care. It's becoming too much to bother discussing it anymore. I dont think serious researchers will ever go to wikipedia anyhow. It gets to be too mediocre after a while. Anyway. All the best. Cheers. Nunamiut (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... perhaps you did not see my response here? You really don't have to attack me to get my attention.  -- Scray (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hi Scray, I just thought that I would wish you and your loved ones a happy new year. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day
Vatsan34 (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm 2 years old already. How time flies!  Thanks!!  -- Scray (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine
User:Keepcalmandcarryon asked for an determination on an edit proposed by User:Ward20 based on the statement made by "a doctor in a court transcript". Whilst this is factually correct, it isn't really the whole truth. The doctor concerned was Dr Jerry Holmburg, PhD, the senior technical advisor for blood policy within the OPHS reading out a prepared statement drafted on behalf of his boss the Assistant Secretary for Health, designated as the Blood Safety Officer and "reviewed throughout the HHS public health services" to CFIDS, the advisory committee convened by the Secretary of Health to advise on CFS policy.

Can I ask you therefore to reconsider your statement on this thread in the light of the true facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerryE (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 February 2010

Thanks

 * This is quite meaningful coming from you Graham! Thank you!!  -- Scray (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This edit on Talk:RD
Thread moved here from my Talk page.

I don't want to extend this on Talk:RD, and I fear that I am misinterpreting your response so I thought I'd ask here. When you used the term "Bullshit", were you referring to my reply? If so, I think it's unfair (and uncivil). The explanation to which you refer is disingenuous: it's not possible to reply on the IP user's talk page, because they shift around from IP to IP. Thus, their complaint that other users have not taken this to User Talk is misdirected - they don't have a user talk page. Furthermore, my reply was not "continued carping"; rather, it was a constructive suggestion for that user meant to help them deliver a more convincing apology. Their failure to sign will remain disruptive, even if all of the current complainants go away. -- Scray (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me. I can't call your post an unending recrimination so my term "Bullshit" cannot apply to it. There is nothing to stop anyone starting User talk:82.43.91.76 by posting a reply. I don't want to say anything more about that IP user who has been asked many times to get over their reluctance to sign. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
(Re: File_talk:Cystic_fibrosis_manifistations.png)

Thank you :-)  M aen K. A.  Talk  21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry About moving the indentation of the conversation at the file talk page, but I thought that would make the conversation more organised, and can you please tell me how does the indentation relate to the temporal order of the messages, thank you again M aen K. A.  Talk  17:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this page has a nice description of indentation guidelines, but I'm happy to help if that's not clear. -- Scray (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, that was clear, and I got the Idea now, But now I think that I looked stupid doing those indentations lol, anyway thank you again and again for your kindest help  M aen K. A.  Talk  18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You did not look stupid at all - you work is fantastic, and formatting a Talk page is just a local convention. Best of luck in your studies - I did similar things when I was a medical student (back when there were Bulletin board systems, before the Internet), and learned a great deal in the process.  I look forward to further interactions with you - don't ever hesitate to ask a question (can't guarantee I will be able to answer, but I'll try).  -- Scray (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for wishing me luck, and yea contributing to wikipedia is really fun and beneficial for me, I appreciate your positive encouragement, and I ll be more than happy to work with you again and again, and If I have any questions you will be the one I will ask, enjoy editing M aen K. A.  Talk  19:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I created new versions guided by your advise :-)  M aen K. A.  Talk  15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other suggestions regarding these?? M aen K. A.  Talk  15:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was slow to respond - have replied at the page you linked. I had hoped others would weigh in, because it would be better to have broader representation of the editors of that page.   -- Scray (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for HIV
HIV has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.  Phoenix of9  06:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A glance suggests to me that the concerns are highly-focused and well-formed - thus relatively easy to address with some homework, rather than pervasive and difficult to fix; this gives me the impression that this could be addressed in a more focused manner than a GA reassessment. Nonetheless, the goal is to improve the article, so I'll contribute as soon as I can (the weekend, most likely).  -- Scray (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt go over the entire article, there may be more problems.  Phoenix of9  15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Response to Your Message to Me
Dear Scray:

Below here (in italics I hope) is the comment you left me earlier:

''Two gentle reminders: (i) no article on WP can be owned by any of us, so your reference to "my ... article" is understandable but misstated (I realize that you did not mean to suggest you own it, but it's best to suppress use of that possessive determiner when referring to WP articles), and (ii) it's easy to sign your posts in Talk space with 4 tildes, i.e. "Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS DDF 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)". BTW, very nice work on the article, sorry I don't have images to offer. -- Scray (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)''

1. First things first - nice to "meet" you :-)

2. There's never any need, with me at least, to worry about being "gentle" - I like it straight and rough :-O LOL.

3. Your point on the "my article" thing is well-taken - I'll do my best to suppress the use of the possessive determiner thingy, as well as any semi-pluperfect pseudo-tenses and other bizarre stuff I'm well known for.

4. Thank much for your very kind compliments on the article that I do NOT own :-) and thanks anyway on the pic request.

5. After the "Sinbot" thing yelled at me the the first time I forgot to sign with the 4 tildes, I have been VERY careful to do the four tildes thing every time (I think) ... BUT, while my signature - the Cliff Knickerbocker, M.S. etc. text - DOES appear every time I use the 4 tildes, I STILL get the same Sinbot complaint, and good folks like you also remind me to sign. I truly don't have a clue what I'm doing wrong.

(remove a bunch of my idiotic babble)

Note added Ex Post Facto ... I think I finally got the sig thing fixed. God, I'm as dense as osmium sometimes. Thanks again.

Best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cliff, it's likewise a pleasure to "meet" you, and please let me know if ever I can do anything to make your Wikipedia experience more pleasant. The workings of this WP environment certainly take some acclimation.  -- Scray (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Heartburn
Don not really understand your reply. Can you please clarify. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I rejected the narrow definition of "heartburn" as solely caused by GERD (acid reflux). Let's see if others weigh in - I'll elaborate if necessary, but I think my comments are pretty clear.  -- Scray (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Adminship
Hello Scray, I mentioned your name in a discussion but thought that I would ask you on your talk page if you are interested in a nomination for adminship?-- Literature geek  |  T@1k?  22:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are incredibly gracious to ask, but I don't think I understand the role well enough to do the job properly. Even if I could survive the RfA grilling, my work often keeps me away for days at a time, something that might not go over well for a new admin.  I would certainly support your RfA, though - I think your rigor and balance would serve WP very well, and your knowledge of the biomedical literature would be a boon to domain-specific topics (where admin presence is needed).  Thanks again for being so thoughtful.  -- Scray (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is a shame. The RfA process I think is off-putting to a lot of people. Thank you very much for the vote of confidence. Who knows maybe I will take a notion and "run the gauntlet" of RfA one of these days. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

MPA
Sorry, I feel like an idiot for asking you about mycophenolic acid vs. medroxyprogesterone acetate. I figured you knew what you were talking about, and I apologize if that came off as condescending. Anyhow, thanks again for all of your work here - people with your combination of expertise, levelheadedness, and willingness to work on this project are few and far between, so please stick around :) MastCell Talk 04:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't infer I was perturbed at all - it was a very reasonable question, because acronyms are easy to misinterpret. You're one of my most valued colleagues here - thanks for your note but there's no problem at all.  -- Scray (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. You know how online interaction is. :) MastCell Talk 06:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea what you mean. Even when the rare misunderstandings do occur, Wikipedians are always level-headed and AGF. -- Scray (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. I forgot that we live in the best of all possible worlds. :P MastCell Talk 20:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)